Post navigation

“I Used to be an Atheist, Just Like You”

I can believe that you used to be an atheist. An atheist is simply someone without a god belief. It’s the “just like you” part that I’m having trouble with.

Lots of Christian apologists introduce themselves as former atheists. Lee Strobel, for example, often begins presentations with a summary of his decadent, angry atheist past. The implied message is that people like me convert to Christianity all the time. No, I don’t think so.

To see this, let’s look at three groups of people.

Group 1 are the Christians.

The atheists need two groups. Group 2 are technically atheists because they don’t have a god belief, but they don’t know much about arguments in favor of Christianity, rebuttals to those arguments, or arguments in favor of atheism. Nothing wrong with that, of course—the God question doesn’t interest everyone—but they’re simply poorly informed about atheism.

Group 3 includes the well-educated atheists. This group does understand the arguments on both sides of the issue. I put myself into this group (with justification, I hope).

I’m sure many people formerly in Group 2 (uninformed atheists) have converted to Christianity. This sounds like the group that the imagined former-atheist-now-Christian came from.

But here’s my point: I’ve never heard of anyone in Group 3, the well-educated atheists, who converted to Christianity. Of course, this makes me vulnerable to the No True Scotsman fallacy—rejecting any counterexample with, “Oh, well that guy wasn’t truly a well-educated atheist”—but I invite you to add a comment if you can think of someone.

Well-educated Christians deconvert to atheism, but well-educated atheists don’t convert to Christianity. More education about the history and origins of Christianity increases the likelihood that the Christian will deconvert, but more education increases the likelihood that the atheist will stay put. Education pushes you in one direction only.

This is an asymmetry that apologists don’t seem to appreciate. Becoming a well-educated atheist is a one-way street. It’s a ratchet. Once you become a well-educated atheist, you’re stuck there.

This is why “just like you” makes no sense. If you were a Group 2 atheist, uninterested and uninformed about the arguments, and you converted to Christianity, that’s not surprising. But if you’d been a well-educated atheist (Group 3), you wouldn’t make the arguments that you do. You wouldn’t make arguments to which I have an immediate rebuttal. Indeed, you would make only those arguments which you knew (since you’d been just like me) I had no response to.

153 thoughts on ““I Used to be an Atheist, Just Like You””

That’s true. But I would put him in the category of “uninformed atheist.” An odd claim to make for someone who the Christians say was the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century, but when you read There is a God, the book supposedly written by Flew, you see that he hadn’t been well informed about the scientific arguments that pushed him to deism. In other words, he was influenced by the opening salvo (which is fine) without digging into the arguments to understand the scientific/atheistic side of things.

Well , folks this could be Bob’s most absurd article on his blog..Full of error.
Bob says:
To see this, let’s look at three groups of people.
Error: (1)There are only two people in the world. THe saved ( Christians) and the lost. ( the rest of mankind) What you call them is irrelevant. Call them Atheist, Agnostic, Human Secularist, Budhist, Muslim, Jewish sects, or the religions tha “ape” chrisitianity. All are unbeleivers.
Error. (2) . Bob says he knows a lot of Christians that “deconverted”… Well Bob knows of no Christian who deconverted there are none. Those the Father gave the Son , the Son gives those and only those eternal life..True born again Cheristians can not deconvert.
I ask Bob if he is going to represent Chrisitianity , then at least represent what orthodox Chrisitianity is. Jesus will loose none the Father gives him.
Error (3) Bob says he never heard of an educated Atheist who converted to Chrisitianity. Wow , what an absurd statement! God will call His elect untill Jesus comes back, and there are millions of educated Atheist that God egenerated throughout time.
So

Bob says he knows a lot of Christians that “deconverted”… Well Bob knows of no Christian who deconverted there are none. Those the Father gave the Son , the Son gives those and only those eternal life..True born again Cheristians can not deconvert.

Yes, that is indeed the No True Scotsman Fallacy (find the link to this in the article above). I doubt you were trying to model that, but you did a great job nonetheless.

I ask Bob if he is going to represent Chrisitianity , then at least represent what orthodox Chrisitianity is

I’m afraid I’ll never be able to make the distinction between your flavor of Christianity and what you think are aberrant forms of Christianity. Let’s make that your job.

Bob says he never heard of an educated Atheist who converted to Chrisitianity. Wow , what an absurd statement! God will call His elect untill Jesus comes back, and there are millions of educated Atheist that God egenerated throughout time.

I have no idea what that means, but if you know of a well-educated atheist who’s converted to Christianity (and who uses interesting and compelling apologetic arguments), give me a name.

So, I suggest if Bob wishes to represent the Christian faith, he does so honestly. And stop building staw men and attacking the straw man.

Remeber Bob Jesus seperates the Sheep and the Goats.. Two people..The Sheep are God’s elect (John10) and the Goats are the rest of mankind..What you call them ( Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, Buddist, etc is meaningless and irrelevant.

Error.(4) Bob’s calim that he has rebutted all of Chrsitianity is also absurd..Bob has not rebutted any claims..All Bob has done is given his own subjective personal opinion..Bob worldview is subjective, and arbitrary, inconsistent, and relitive to his feelings.

Bob has no standard for truth, morality, or human ethics, or science. Bob can not account for these things.

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. ”

Some claim that only Lucifer himself meets that criteria for being unable to be reached.

After having been raised in a Jewish family and attending Christian Bible studies weekly for many years as an atheist, and also having read several histories of Christianity, as well as many books on Buddhism, I once considered myself a reasonable well informed Christian atheist. Once I accepted God and Christ, I did dig much deeper and became much more informed especially for example in the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate.

I have noticed that Bob spends a lot of time on Old Testament issues and especially young Earth Creationism. However, even John Calvin in the 1500s rejected that biblical interpretation. I don’t have the specific page number but it was in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which is the most important Protestant theological work there is outside the Bible. He did that centuries before Darwin. As I recall it was simply a part of his setting aside Catholic believes from biblical ones. Catholics have since moved away from that position also since then. So knowing the nuances of YEC is addressing a rather slim segment of Christianity. Even Jews have moved away from some of the things it says in the OT, and the only way to understand the OT from a Christian perspective is to study the NT.

However, the categories those survey questions provide seem to me to presuppose that God acts within our notion of time. It is pretty clear he does not, which was very well understand by for example Jonathan Edwards in the 1700s.

One problem that results excluding Creationism from public schools, and at the same time making private religious education unaffordable by rejecting vouchers, is that most Christians are sadly uneducated on the relevant concepts.

It was only when I understood the real state of current scientific understanding of fundamental reality and also the sophisticated understand in those same concepts implicit in the Bible that I realized that the Bible was in fact inspired because there is no way they could have gotten in that correct 2000 years ago.

“What are you saying the Bible got correct? Perhaps you could illustrate your point with some verses.”

“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. ” Genesis 2:1-2

If you try to work out what has to be true to resolve the accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, there has to be a view of acting outside of our sense of time. It was not until Einstein that science began to grapple with what time really is. Prior to that, some prominent scientists thought understanding of physics was nearly wrapped up except for a few limited gray areas.

“Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” (James 4:14-15)

I think most Christians even consider that a pretty minor verse. I think it is a very insightful description of the nature of reality, consciousness, and our lack of free will.

This is all after the fact. It’s Monday-morning quarterbacking. I’d like to see an example of some truth about reality (quantum physics, even something simple like germ theory) that Mankind learned of first from the Bible.

I ALREADY gave you an instance of an important truth known to the Bible and unknown to nearly everyone else (including the Greek philosophers): linear time. Most religions and philosophies were entangled in cyclical time and eternal recurrence.

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance

Jon Cohen..You might want to go to aomin.org and listen to James White sermon on Hebrews 6.

««« Error: (1)There are only two people in the world. THe saved ( Christians) and the lost. ( the rest of mankind) What you call them is irrelevant. Call them Atheist, Agnostic, Human Secularist, Budhist, Muslim, Jewish sects, or the religions tha “ape” chrisitianity. All are unbeleivers. »»»

Ever heard of the invisible Church? From a catholic standpoind, people that say they are not Christians are not necessarily cursed by God and separated from him. They may have good reasons for rejecting what they think is Christianity. Even if the real thing is explained to them properly, it’s not a certainty that they will UNDERSTAND it as they are supposed to. Because, well, we ultimately don’t know what goes on in other people’s heads.

Yes, the invisible church are those past and present and future that are the true elect of God..Those God’s Spirit regenerated to eternal life.

The RCC is caught in there own infallable contradiction. You have Vat I and early Counsils with infallable dogma’s saying there is only salvation in the RCC. and only salvation in the mass and eucharist, and there is no other way except through the RCC.
Then you have Vat11 with infallable dogma that others then the RCC can have seperated brothers who will be saved. And also that the RC worships and adores with the Muslim the same God. What a mess of contradicting infallable dogma’s..What a pethetic man made ,synergistic, sacramental works system. That practices Idolatry..The RCC is leading milliions of people to hell with a false gospel.

Well Bob knows of no Christian who deconverted there are none. Those the Father gave the Son , the Son gives those and only those eternal life..True born again Cheristians can not deconvert.

Yes, that is indeed the No True Scotsman Fallacy (find the link to this in the article above). I doubt you were trying to model that, but you did a great job nonetheless.

Sorry Bob ,
I am familiar witht ehNo true Scotsman Fallacy. But it does not apply to my statement. Wether you beleive the scriptures or not is ireelevant. But the Bible teaches theat those the Father gives the Son will never loose their salvation..This is an absolute fact. So when you make a statement that Dan Barker was a Chrsitian who deconverted, that according to thwe Christian world view would be impossible.
That is what I mean by a straw man agrument.

So Bob,
If you gave a correct view of Christianity you would not bring up Christians can deconvert.
That is what I mean, please do not make up false caracatures of Christianity, that do not exist. There are many people who have an intelectual understanding ( faith) of Christianity, but that is not a saving faith. There is a difference. Dan Barker was never a true born again Christian, as he says he was. And this has been pointed out to him by some appologist’s.

As John says: 1 John 2:19 “They went out from us,but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us”.

OK, I understand what you’re saying now. You do appreciate, though, that loads of Christians (I would say the vast majority) don’t accept your thinking? That is, they accept the fact that a Christian can deconvert. They don’t have this idea that any deconverting Christian couldn’t have been a true Christian.

This may well be Bob Calvan’s view of Christianity, but it’s certainly not a universal view of Christianity.

No What I am saying is not standard Calvinism, Most Arminians do hol;d to the beloeiver can not loose their salvation.

What I hold to is sola scriptura..Jesus came do do the will of the Father. And what is the will of the Father? To save perfectly all those He gave the Son..And the Son gave those Eternal life..Jesus said He did fulfill the will of the Father perfectly.
So for one to assume one can deconvert is to assumme Jesus Failed to do the Fathers will. And Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit failed in their attemp to save those sinners. Give me a break. Jesus said nothing on earth or in heaven can take away those beleivers the Father gave him..So when presenting the Christian faith (Weather we beleive the scriptures or not) let us be truthful on what it teaches.. That is all I ask.. I would respect Bob’s views a lot more.
Thank you Bob for hearing me out.

Sounds to me like Jesus did indeed fail. How many souls will go to hell vs. how many in heaven? My understanding (uh oh–here again, I may be thinking of something besides your version of Christianity!) is that most will go to hell.

Imagine a school teacher who failed most of her students. Terrible! Wouldn’t you expect Mr. Big to do better than that?

You’re quite right that I need to portray Christianity reasonably rather than invent some strawman that’s easy to knock over. But I need to be a lot more ecumenical than describing just your version.

Obviously God could have created whatever beings he wanted to inhabit this world. He choose to allow good and evil to coexist, and by its nature the evil spreads. After our deaths, our eternal souls go to places where the good and evil are separated for eternity.

Now BobS is claiming that the people going hell outnumbering the people going to heaven, and that indicates injustice. But we don’t know enough to say that, because there are many kinds of things that can happen. It could be that the suffering in hell is infinite in time but diminishes so that the total amount of suffering is finite (Calvin suggested that), or it could be that eventually more people are created directly into heaven, making the total number in hell a tiny number by comparison. There are many other possibilities, and the surprises we know about in life are probably only a hint of the surprises to come afterwards.

Jon: Sure, we don’t know. And yet that doesn’t stop many Christian pastors and theologians from weaving elaborate stories about heaven and hell and life afterwards. If you’re one of the few voices who argue that the Bible actually gives very few specifics about life after death, that’s great. But we’re awash with such speculation within the Christian community, so I need to confront that.

I forgot to reply to Bob’s statement that ” He never heard of a well educated Atheist that converted to Chrsitianity”….
Well there are hundreds of them..If you like i can list one a day for a few months if you like?

Here is a good start. Alister McGrath was formely an Atheist
He went up to Wadham College, Oxford in 1971 and gained first class honours in chemistry in 1975. He began research in molecular biophysics in the Oxford University Department of Biochemistry under the supervision of Professor Sir George Radda, FRS and was elected to an E.P.A. Cephalosporin Research Studentship at Linacre College, Oxford, for the academic year 1975-6, and to a Domus Senior Scholarship at Merton College, Oxford, for the period 1976-8. During these three years, he carried out scientific research while studying for the Oxford University Final Honour School of Theology. He was awarded an Oxford D.Phil. for his research in molecular biophysics (December 1977), and gained first class honours in Theology in June 1978.[1]

I don’t want a list of well-educated Christians. I want a list of people who:

(1) were well educated about atheism (rather than merely being atheists). As well-educated as me, let’s say. (That’s not asking a lot!)

(2) turned their backs on atheism and became Christians.

I can’t think of anyone. Antony Flew is not a bad candidate (as brought forward by a well-informed reader in an earlier comment), but he was not well informed about the atheist arguments. Proof: he wouldn’t have expressed the Christian apologetics so superficially in “his” There is a God.

I read McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion shortly after it came out, and I found it fairly light–more a critique of Dawkins’ approach than an actual rebuttal. I haven’t read his Twilight of Atheism.

I’ve read Lewis’s Mere Christianity. That was worthwhile, because he is so often cited, and I saw a wide variety of arguments that I think he originated (in his particular form, anyway).

But this gets to my point. Neither of these guys (and again, I haven’t read the McGrath book you recommend) takes the conversation to the next level. They all give arguments to which I have immediate replies–or at least replies that I can formulate after a bit of thought.

If I become a Christian, I would target the atheist audience by taking the argument to the next level. And this is my point–this is what I’m not seeing.

Could be, of course, that these guys could well take it to the next level, but they’re not targeting me in the audience. OK, but that does nothing to refute my point that Christian apologists weren’t like me (because if they were, they would be using arguments that go one step beyond where I am, rather than stop one step before).

Firstly, regarding Lewis. He died almost 50 years ago and to be fair to both you and him, the arguments aren’t in the same place now that they were then. Moreover, his atheist days were in the 20s and 30s. It would be fair to say that he was educated about the atheist arguments that were current in his time. You can only expect him to take the argument one step beyond where it was then, not where you are now.

That you can provide responses to the arguments raised in Mere Christianity I suggest is probably more due to those arguments being so widely used. An argument could be made that, at the time, he was taking the argument to the next level. But if you wanted examples of Lewis taking the argument to the next level, then I would recommend other books than Mere Christianity, like The Problem of Pain.

McGrath’s book points out that atheism seems to lack the intellectual creativity and vivacity of 100 years ago, and asks if we are seeing the movement at the end of its cycle.

Sounds to me like Jesus did indeed fail. How many souls will go to hell vs. how many in heaven? My understanding (uh oh–here again, I may be thinking of something besides your version of Christianity!) is that most will go to hell.

Imagine a school teacher who failed most of her students. Terrible! Wouldn’t you expect Mr. Big to do better than that?

You’re quite right that I need to portray Christianity reasonably rather than invent some strawman that’s easy to knock over. But I need to be a lot more ecumenical than describing just your version.

I have not given you my opinion or version of Christianity. Just scripture. If a difficulot verse or doctrine did arise I will let you know this is my opinion and why.
No Jesus did not fail..It is obvious you are just skimming what I say. Jesus saved and is saving PERFECTLY all the Father gives Him (John 6:37)
THere will not be one lost person who is predestined to be saved that will not be. And yes, God has decreed that more will recieve His wrath than will recieve His mercy. But no man recieves unjustice. We all desrve God’s wrath. But God has determined to save for Himself a multitude that no onwe can number, for His Glory and for His purpose. Praise God!

Will Jesus ensure that everyone gets into heaven? If not, then something is getting bungled somewhere. Billions of souls in eternal torment is a pretty big failure.

We deserve God’s wrath? We deserve infinite punishment? Not even Hitler deserves that! How we’re destined for hell when we act in the imperfect way that he made us is beyond comprehension to me. I’m not sure where God deserves any praise for an insane setup like that.

Atheism also has infinite punishment. There are several models of cosmology proposed to avoid the problem of why 19 or so physical constants are tuned to exactly the values needed for life. They generally involve some infinite sequence of Big Bangs with slightly different values. Such an infinite sequence is going to have an infinite subsequence with essentially the same values, so the same people will recur an infinite number of times. Take a BobS type person for example. That person can be described by the reaction that person will have in each possible situation. Most of the life situations that have occurred in history have been pretty miserable, at least in comparison in today’s conditions, and today’s conditions aren’t that great for most of humanity as it is. So in such an atheist system, BobS will effectively reincarnate into a series of lives most of which are unpleasant. All of that is governed by senseless randomness.

If there is a personal God guiding things through a plan, then we can look forward to a just type of eternal life, even if we don’t understand it at this time.

Multiverse theory is pretty speculative, and reincarnation as a consequence is extremely speculative. Are you trying to use science to prove the existence of a soul?

But even going down this path, a sucky life only last for so long. God’s Perfect Plan® would have those who didn’t believe correctly each given eternal torment.

And that’s the crazy thing about the Christian view. God’s plan isn’t just! None of us playing judge, even if caught a particularly peevish frame of mind, would ever sentence anyone to eternal punishment. It’s simply not just. And the same punishment for each crime? Ghandi gets the same punishment as Stalin? Crazy.

Jon Cohen may be right: if God does not exist and the universe is all that there is, how can it avoid eternal recurrence? If eternal recurrence is true, then we are pretty wretched. Because we will experience again and again the same pain, the same failures that we are experiencing right now.

With an infinite universe, there is an infinite amount of suffering, however you cut it up. Whether it is a series of nearly identical individuals, or a single reincarnating individual with no memory, or an eternal soul with memory, it is still infinite suffering. The only way out is for the universe to become void, or for evil to be defeated and for God to control the suffering. Obviously this is speculative, but the point is that you can’t claim that infinite suffering is inherent only in God.

And the alternative to an infinite universe is to suppose that this one that is just right for life to exist just magically appeared, one time. That’s pretty speculative.

It’s infinite suffering for infinite individuals. The Christian view has infinite suffering for each individual.

I don’t see where the reincarnation comes in and how we can assume that souls exist, but if you simply imagine infinite universes, the suffering of any single life form is finite.

I’m not convinced by the fine-tuning argument (more in a later post, perhaps), but the magical appearance is actually what the Christian thinks. The Christian claims it’s super unlikely. The multiverse is indeed speculative, but as for the appearance of any particular universe, I don’t see how that is speculative.

And this doesn’t bypass the problem that you quoted: that Ghandi gets the same punishment as Stalin. God’s justice is one size fits all. That makes for a pretty poor fit IMO.

Why? Ghandi and Stalin and you are God hatrers. God is Just. In fact every time you post a new article you are heaping more coals upon your head.. You go out of your way to attack your Creator, your judgemnt will be worse. Unless God grants you repentence.

I’m still seeing the atheist position at the end of each line of reasoning, with no Christian rebuttals taking it a step further. Let me admit that there could be good Christian apologetics that I’m just not familiar with (though that seems to be increasingly unlikely).

“Well-educated Christians deconvert to atheism, but well-educated atheists don’t convert to Christianity. More education about the history and origins of Christianity increases the likelihood that the Christian will deconvert, but more education increases the likelihood that the atheist will stay put. Education pushes you in one direction only.”

That’s a fairly odd thing to say. Not really accurate is it? In light of (just off the top of my head) folks like C.S. Lewis, Anthony Flew, Alister McGrath, Peter Hitchens, Ann Rice, Thomas Merton, Czeslaw Milosz, and others. Those are just the famous examples. There are many obscure, yet educated, converts who would take exception to your charaterizing them as “uneducated” or “undereducated”.

“This is an asymmetry that apologists don’t seem to appreciate. Becoming a well-educated atheist is a one-way street. It’s a ratchet. Once you become a well-educated atheist, you’re stuck there.”

Sorry I think this assertion might be you projecting your own narrative onto others. Good luck with the fact that you can’t allow yourself room for error and re-evaluation of data, but to claim that is some kind of standard across the board is nonsense. Usually I find that the “education” most atheists have about Christian theology is riddled with holes, propaganda, and misinformation…or, they simply choose to allow only for a hyper literalist view of the bible which makes them every bit as stubborn and nonsensical as the hardest of hard-core young earth creationist types. Either way it’s generally a construct they use to keep themselves from seriously considering the possbility of some something greater than the whole of human knowledge.

In the post, I tried to make a clear distinction (maybe it wasn’t so clear) between ordinary atheists (people who simply have no god belief) and those who are well trained in apologetics, both for and against Christianity. As I said, if these converted atheists had been well-trained atheists, they wouldn’t be making the weak arguments that they do. Rather they would say, “OK, the atheist will respond thusly … [fill in all the arguments that I would use] … but these don’t work because of … [fill in new, compelling arguments].” Never happens. I get the same old arguments. That is, the tennis match always ends with me replying to my Christian opponent, with him not responding.

There are many obscure, yet educated, converts who would take exception to your charaterizing them as “uneducated” or “undereducated”.

They may well take exception, but I argue that this is without foundation, for the reason just stated.

it’s generally a construct they use to keep themselves from seriously considering the possbility of some something greater than the whole of human knowledge.

I’m happy to consider something greater. That there never turns out to be meaningful evidence of such a something-or-other is why I continue to be an atheist.

Bob,
I think you really do need to read what Alister McGrath and Peter Hitchens have written about their own atheism and their decisions to abandon that for theism.

You are sure that no atheist who really understood the philosophical issues involved would convert to theism, yet if you read the accounts of these two (and both of them have books released in the past decade which cover precisely this issue – The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath and The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens) you will find two people committed to atheism and well-versed in the philosophical issues who did make such a decision.

To support your claim you must either show that people like this do not really understand the philosophical issues involved ie that they were never educated atheists.

Around the four minute mark, Peter says that it was fear that made him convert to Christianity.

In this newspaper article, Peter Hitchens explains that he was raised as a Christian, in his teenage years became an atheist out of rebellion, but then returned to Christianity by his thirties because of fear:

Read the newspaper article and then explain to me how Peter Hitchens was ever an educated atheist. Explain to me where it describes Peter Hitchens becoming an atheist because of logic and reason, and then converting to Christianity because of logic and reason.

Unless you really want to argue about it, and provide some quotes from his book, I think we can safely cross Peter Hitchens off the “Educated atheist converted to Christian” list.

Retro, I have read the article, and did when it was first published (some time before the “updated” date on the page.) I do think that you have rather missed the point in his story. Yes, rebellion in his teenage years did play a part in his moving away from the faith of his parents – are you going to say that every atheist who left their parent’s faith in part because of rebellion did so apart from logic and reason? Or could the two have not been combined? Especially when Hitchens states “We were sure that we, and our civilisation, had grown out of the nursery myths of God, angels and Heaven. We had modern medicine, penicillin, jet engines, the Welfare State, the United Nations and ‘ science’, which explained everything that needed to be explained.” it seems that his rebellion was not something that was purely hormonal in its causes, but he had (or found) reasons to support his atheism.

In the same way, fear did play a role in his conversion to Christianity, although again was this a fear divorced from reason and logic? He points out several reasons for his return to religion: One was the inevitability of my own death, the other the undoubted fact that my despised forebears were neither crude nor ignorant, but men and women of great skill and engineering genius, a genius not contradicted or blocked by faith, but enhanced by it.
He also mentions his disillusionment with politics and ambition playing a role.
Another reason was fear, or to be more precise the sense of dread at his own judgment that ven der Weyden’s Last Judgment prompted within him. If God is real, and he has been living a life of rebellion against God, then isn’t fear of God’s judgment a perfectly rational and logical response to have?

But surely the real issue is whether he was knowledgable about the issues regarding atheism and theism at the time of his conversion to Christianity. The fact that fear and rebellion played parts in his journey at various points speaks nothing to this issue. In fact, it probably shows a greater honesty and transparency in his account that he acknowledges that these played a role in his decisions. It is all too easy to pretend that our head always rules our heart completely in issues like this.

Bob,
You say:

It’s certainly possible that I’ll come across someone who knows all the arguments that I present and then hits the ball back over the net with arguments that I haven’t seen yet. But I doubt it.

I’m not especially driven to read a whole book on the off chance that I’ll find all my arguments rebutted. I’m open minded and interested in hearing the other side, but time is limited.

You seem to be more than willing to read those whom you either are confident you will agree with, or whom you are confident you can provide counter-arguments to. Yet, when encouraged to read books which may challenge your preconceptions you don’t have the time?

At any rate, I doubt that any argument would convince you. The fact is that “We tend to relax our critical powers when assessing what appears to confirm the narratives to which we’re deeply committed.” In other words, your guard is up whenever you are reading or hearing a Christian argument, in a way in which it is not when hearing the opposite point of view. (We’re all the same.)

In fact you are probably more like Christopher Hitchen’s about whom Peter Hitchen’s said in the same article: It is my belief that passions as strong as his are more likely to be countered by the unexpected force of poetry, which can ambush the human heart at any time.

You’ve gone down a different path than I’m on. I’m saying that atheists-turned-Christian don’t address the arguments that I’ve seen coming from the atheist side. If they had been atheists like me, that’s exactly what they’d do (not for every audience, of course, but at least somewhere). That they don’t says that they aren’t familiar with those arguments or don’t have rebuttals to them; hence, they were not like me.

When I present my arguments, I get rebuttals, but I want to see it the other way around. If I become a Christian, the first thing I’ll do is list the arguments that I found compelling and for which Christianity had no answer, and then answer them. That is, I’ll be active, not reactive. Of course, it’s possible that these ex-atheists know the arguments well but simply choose to avoid those conversations. Maybe they don’t much care about converting atheists like me. But I’ve seen no evidence of Christians who were atheists just like me, when, if they existed, I would’ve expected to see much evidence.

Yet, when encouraged to read books which may challenge your preconceptions you don’t have the time?

Surely this can’t seem odd to you. I’ve read many books by Christians on apologetics. At first, the arguments were largely new to me, and I enjoyed the challenge of evaluating them. But the books are becoming less interesting and more repetitive. I’ve heard “Oh, but this book will really knock your socks off” too many times.

At any rate, I doubt that any argument would convince you.

I will respond to any well-evidenced, correct argument like the average person would–perhaps reluctant initially (I have an ego, too), but I think I would fairly quickly research the question and (again, assuming that it’s correct) come around.

The problem is, I haven’t seen such an argument.

In other words, your guard is up whenever you are reading or hearing a Christian argument, in a way in which it is not when hearing the opposite point of view.

Do you doubt that there is any Hindu or Shinto argument that will eventually convert you? I do. Are we at fault for having this attitude?

I know far, far more about the pro-Christian arguments than about any arguments in favor of other religions, and I think that the emperor has no clothes for this Christianity, just like the rest.

You’ve gone down a different path than I’m on. I’m saying that atheists-turned-Christian don’t address the arguments that I’ve seen coming from the atheist side. If they had been atheists like me, that’s exactly what they’d do (not for every audience, of course, but at least somewhere). That they don’t says that they aren’t familiar with those arguments or don’t have rebuttals to them; hence, they were not like me.

Yet in your original post you said:

Group 3 includes the well-educated atheists. This group does understand the arguments on both sides of the issue. I put myself into this group (with justification, I hope).

You have gone down a different path. A path that has involved you changing the definition from someone who “understand the arguments on both sides of the issue” to someone who “addresses the arguments that I’ve seen coming from the atheist side.”

What you have done there is restricted who you are talking about to people who are dealing with the same issues that you are. Now it is highly possible that there have been well-educated atheists who understand the issues on both sides in the context they lived in, but they are not the same issues that you consider most important right now. This doesn’t mean that they were not well-educated. Maybe it means they were wired differently to you, lived in a different culture (both Peter Hitchens and Alister McGrath left atheism in the 70s or 80s in Europe/Britain), or some other reason.

In any case, I think that Peter Hitchen’s quote about his brother is relevant here. Maybe there are no arguments that will convince you because you have set yourself up in such a way as to be protected from any argument for God, no matter how convincing it may be to another person. Maybe for you too the only way you could come to believe in God is through being surprised through poetry.

Do you doubt that there is any Hindu or Shinto argument that will eventually convert you? I do. Are we at fault for having this attitude?

I just think it is important for us to acknowledge that we all have such an attitude.

Now it is highly possible that there have been well-educated atheists who understand the issues on both sides in the context they lived in, but they are not the same issues that you consider most important right now.

If well-educated atheists (PZ Myers, Dawkins, etc.) were to read my blog, I hope that they’d find a few gems in there that they hadn’t seen before. But there would be little of that. 90% of my arguments, they would have seen before (and likely written about themselves). Same for when I read their stuff.

I am frequently delighted by a new analogy or a new connection or some new data. But I rarely see a new argument.

So I disagree with what I take to be the main thrust of your point here. Any atheist who is well-versed in the current discussion will be familiar with these arguments. And therefore, if that atheist were to become a Christian, he would list all these (supposedly) strong arguments for atheism and show why they’re all wrong. What we see instead is Christians making the same old positive arguments for Christianity.

Maybe there are no arguments that will convince you because you have set yourself up in such a way as to be protected from any argument for God, no matter how convincing it may be to another person.

How do we distinguish this from what I think is the real situation: that I’m on the correct side of this issue, and Christian arguments are weak?

In the same way, fear did play a role in his conversion to Christianity, although again was this a fear divorced from reason and logic?

Why fear God? What logic and reasoning was there for Peter Hitchens to conclude that God was going to judge him, an afterlife exists, and that he was going to be damned? The fact that Peter Hitchens jumped straight from atheism to Christianity is very interesting. Theism and Christianity are not synonymous.

It is all too easy to pretend that our head always rules our heart completely in issues like this.

Do you think that all atheists would prefer there to be no God? I’d actually prefer it if there was a kind and loving God that cared and prevented bad things from happening and protected the weak. Although I’d prefer there to be a God, there really is no evidence IMO to justify belief.

Unless you find some elaborate way to explain all the random pain and suffering away, the world around us demonstrates that if a supernatural being does exist, this God (or gods) doesn’t seem to care about man at all.

I’d actually prefer it if there was a kind and loving God that cared and prevented bad things from happening and protected the weak.

Ditto. A reading of the Old Testament shows a violent and capricious god. That guy I don’t want to exist. A truly loving god (that Christians claim exists but which is denied in their own holy book) would be terrific.

Why fear God? What logic and reasoning was there for Peter Hitchens to conclude that God was going to judge him, an afterlife exists, and that he was going to be damned? The fact that Peter Hitchens jumped straight from atheism to Christianity is very interesting. Theism and Christianity are not synonymous.

Hypothetically, if God did exist and there was an afterlife, then fear is surely one of the logical responses someone can have, is it not? Remember, it wasn’t fear alone, but fear within the context of the other reasons he mentioned that brought about his conversion. And the fact he converted straight from atheism to Christianity is neither here nor there. The fact is that he converted away from atheism. What you want to show is that he did so without any real knowledge of what it really means to be an atheist, or the ability to defend himself against arguments against atheism. And if you read the article it is explicit that it was not a quick journey but a slow one.

Do you think that all atheists would prefer there to be no God? I’d actually prefer it if there was a kind and loving God that cared and prevented bad things from happening and protected the weak. Although I’d prefer there to be a God, there really is no evidence IMO to justify belief.

I don’t know where you got that idea from what I said. In my experience, most people who debate apologetic issues, no matter what side of the fence they’re on, would like to think that they are the holders of a dispassionate, logical view. That their views are not the result of grudges, rebellion, fears, insecurities, etc. So many McCoy’s trying to pretend they’re Spock. I’m a human, not a Vulcan – I suspect you are too, and I do not believe it weakens my position to say that my reactions to art, poetry, romance, injustice, tragedy, friendship and other things that move the heart influence me. The person who pretends that these things do not influence them, I suspect is deceiving themselves.

In terms of explaining all the random pain and suffering away – I can’t. However, every worldview I have investigated has had a poorer explanation of this than Christianity. I can believe in a God that gets his hands dirty with the world’s crap.

Hypothetically, if God did exist and there was an afterlife, then fear is surely one of the logical responses someone can have, is it not?

Why assume anything? Hypothetically, if God did exist, and there was an afterlife, then maybe it would also be logical to think that God would accept everyone into heaven.

There’s really no logic or reason to assume much of anthing about a hypothetical God is there? It seems that your only limitation is your imagination.

And the fact he converted straight from atheism to Christianity is neither here nor there. The fact is that he converted away from atheism.

The REASONS he converted is the point of our discussion. Maybe his book goes into more detail, but the impression he gives in the article is that it was mainly an emotional response.

The person who pretends that these things do not influence them, I suspect is deceiving themselves.

And as I was explaining, I don’t pretend that these things don’t influence me. In my case, these emotional things do influence me to want there to be a god. I’d prefer to live forever in an afterlife with all of my loved ones. But again, I realize that there must be evidence to justify belief in these things.

Does it really seem logical or rational that atheists would ever be driven away from believing in God and/or the afterlife because of emotions?

In terms of explaining all the random pain and suffering away – I can’t. However, every worldview I have investigated has had a poorer explanation of this than Christianity.

What’s wrong with simply accepting that it’s random? Hurricanes and lightning strike at random, as do earthquakes, asteroids, and droughts.

Notice, Alister is actually asked why he jumped from a concept of god to the Christian God. Alister responded with answers like: “Here was something that seems to be right, that seems to be comprehensive and actually in its own way was really rather beautiful. And so that really grabbed me.”

And when asked why he choose Christianity, and not some other religion, he responded: “Oh I don’t deny for one moment there are many other ways. I’m just saying the one that I found to be right, the one that I found to be most intellectually satisfactory, was this one.”

When asked about the “god of the gaps”, Alister replied: “Well I think anybody who tries to base their belief in God on observation of things that science can’t prove at present is actually playing a very unwise and very unnecessary game. For me it’s not that there are gaps that can’t be explained. It is that the fact that one can explain at all that’s so exciting and so interesting. And for me explicability itself requires explanation. Why is it that we can make sense of anything? Why is it that mathematics – supposedly the free creation of the human mind – turns out to have such a close affinity with the way things actually are? And it seems to me that the, that our capacity to explain really needs explanation, and certainly if you’re a Christian, there’s a very ready explanation to hand, in terms of humanity bearing God’s image. There’s some correspondence between the divine rationality and a human rationality. So for me, that is the big picture, which I find most intellectually satisfying.”

Did you catch what he said? He states it’s not that there are gaps that can’t be explained, but it’s that explanation itself needs to be explained. This is really doing nothing more than extending the ‘god of the gaps’ argument out to one more step.

I don’t really see logic or evidence playing a big role in Alister McGrath’s conversion to Christianity. His explanations are filled with phrases like “seems to be right”, “seems to be comprehensive” and “seems to work”.

There’s nothing wrong with impressions, feelings, and opinions, but these things are merely preferences, and preferences can’t prove that a god or an afterlife actually exists.

Retro,
I’m confused. You seem to be biting or chafing at things you’re imagining I’m saying.
When I say

It is all too easy to pretend that our head always rules our heart completely in issues like this.

meaning that none of is the completely rational and logical creature some imagine themselves to be, you respond with:

Do you think that all atheists would prefer there to be no God?

As if I was saying that all atheists beliefs were a result of wish-fulfillment. I don’t know how you read that meaning into what I said.

Now you say

Does it really seem logical or rational that atheists would ever be driven away from believing in God and/or the afterlife because of emotions?

And I’m confused, because I know of at least one, and I’m sure you do too, because it’s a famous case that is quoted often (it is a confession of the atheist’s as to why he is an atheist, not one of these “must have been missing a father-figure” suppositions) but given your track record so far in the conversation I have no idea what unintended meaning you are going to conjure out of what I say.

What’s wrong with simply accepting that it’s random? Hurricanes and lightning strike at random, as do earthquakes, asteroids, and droughts.

Maybe that’s the difference between us. I believe the universe is suffused with meaning. I don’t think that life is random. I don’t think that online conversations are random, hence my confusion at some of your responses.

I’ve heard the answers that you have: that God is preemptively taking out a future Hitler (but is God’s scalpel so dull that he must kill thousands of innocents as well?), that God is teaching us compassion (so barbarity and death now become compassion??), that God’s ways are not our ways (aren’t we made in God’s image? Can’t God follow his own rules of morality?), and so on.

In the end, the answers always seem to devolve into “We just can’t understand God,” which IMO is just a dodge to resuscitate the God hypothesis.

What are some answers that other worldviews have to the the meaning behind natural disasters?

How about natural disasters are a result of blind natural forces, they are random, and there is no greater meaning.

I’d like to hear your opinion about something Karl. There’s a place in the New Testament, and several in the Old Testament where the will of God was discovered by the casting of lots.

Acts 1:24-26 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

What do you make of this practice of casting lots in the Bible? Is it random, or is God miraculously affecting the outcome of the dice? Should we still look for a hidden or greater meaning when rolling the dice today?

What do you make of this practice of casting lots in the Bible? Is it random, or is God miraculously affecting the outcome of the dice? Should we still look for a hidden or greater meaning when rolling the dice today?

It is a clear teaching of the Bible that nothing happens that God does not allow.

This was an established practice in the OT, but once the Holy Spirit was given this practice was not continued. In other words the Bible does not instruct Christians to look for guidance from God through lots, dice or other such. Our choices matter to God. Much more than dice. And this comes through in the OT as well.

However I think you can probably assign meaning to whatever is riding on the outcome of the dice. If a national leader was rolling the dice to determine whether he was going to launch a nuclear strike, then the outcome would be a reflection on whether God was going to allow nuclear war or not.

In a game of Monopoly, the outcome is whatever space you land on, and consequently who wins the game. I think we can agree that this outcome doesn’t matter as much as the first example, no matter what my kids think 🙂

This was an established practice in the OT, but once the Holy Spirit was given this practice was not continued.

The Disciples already had the Holy Spirit according to John 20:22 which reads: “And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

In other words the Bible does not instruct Christians to look for guidance from God through lots, dice or other such.

The Bible never condemns the practice either. The fact that the Disciples used lots after they received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22, and nothing bad happened and nothing negative was ever said, it’s logical to conclude that it’s still an acceptable practice.

It simply seems odd to me that God personally showed up and was so specific and detailed on some occasions in the Bible, and then on other occasions He simply left things up to the casting of lots.

However I think you can probably assign meaning to whatever is riding on the outcome of the dice.

This reminds me of a joke. (Forgive me if you’ve heard it before.)

Three Christians are discussing how much money they should give to God.

The first Christian draws a circle on the ground and prays: “God, I’m going to throw my money in the air, and I’ll give you the money that lands inside the circle.”

The second Christian also draws a circle on the ground and prays: “God, I’m going to throw my money in the air, and I’ll give you the money that lands outside the circle.”

The third Christians doesn’t draw a circle at all, and prays: “God, I’m going to throw my money up in the air, take however much you want, and I’ll keep whatever lands on the floor.”

meaning that none of is the completely rational and logical creature some imagine themselves to be

What was your point in bringing up emotions? How you feel about the truth is one thing, how you know something is true is another. In the case of trying to determine something scientific, like if a god exists or not, I don’t see emotions doing anything but getting in the way.

And I’m confused, because I know of at least one, and I’m sure you do too, because it’s a famous case that is quoted often (it is a confession of the atheist’s as to why he is an atheist

To have any significant emotions towards God, one would have to believe that He actually exists. Someone who believes in God is not an atheist.

I wouldn’t be happy if a tornado destroyed my house, but I wouldn’t actually hate the tornado, or start denying that tornados exist.

What was your point in bringing up emotions? How you feel about the truth is one thing, how you know something is true is another. In the case of trying to determine something scientific, like if a god exists or not, I don’t see emotions doing anything but getting in the way.

And get in the way they do, as they did for Aldous Huxley:I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption
and as they no doubt also do for you and I.

To have any significant emotions towards God, one would have to believe that He actually exists. Someone who believes in God is not an atheist.

I wouldn’t be happy if a tornado destroyed my house, but I wouldn’t actually hate the tornado, or start denying that tornados exist.

The issue is not so much whether you have emotions towards God. I’m not saying you’re an atheist because you’re angry with God. What I am saying is that you have a significant emotional investment in continuing to be an atheist, as I have a significant emotional investment in continuing to be a theist. To deny that this influences how we respond to arguments from one side or the other would be foolish and ignorant.

What source did you get this Huxley quote from? It’s not a completely accurate quote if it’s supposed to be from his book ‘Ends and Means’. I don’t have the time to get the book right now, but it seems that Huxley was explaining why he once accepted that philosophy, the problems he found with it, and then went on to explain why he came to reject it.

I don’t know what Huxley believed at the time he wrote ‘Ends and Means”, but he joined a Vedanta Society shortly after the book was published.

Ve·dan·ta (v-dänt, -dn-)
n. Hinduism
The system of philosophy that further develops the implications in the Upanishads that all reality is a single principle, Brahman, and teaches that the believer’s goal is to transcend the limitations of self-identity and realize one’s unity with Brahman.

Wikipedia states: “Aldous Huxley was a humanist, pacifist, and satirist, and he was latterly interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism. He is also well known for advocating and taking psychedelics.”

Important question: Did Aldous Huxley ever call himself an atheist?

I know several Christian authors have used this Huxley quote when discussing atheism, but Huxley wasn’t discussing atheism, so it really doesn’t have anything to do with atheism. (Rather than quote Huxley, these authors should stick to quoting Ecclesiastes.)

I’m not saying you’re an atheist because you’re angry with God.

Good. As you know, this is a worn out self-refuting argument that still gets used by way too many theists.

What I am saying is that you have a significant emotional investment in continuing to be an atheist, as I have a significant emotional investment in continuing to be a theist. To deny that this influences how we respond to arguments from one side or the other would be foolish and ignorant.

OK, but what’s your opinion about what we should do? Should we try to minimize these influences, or should we use these influences to guide our decisions?

you have a significant emotional investment in continuing to be an atheist, as I have a significant emotional investment in continuing to be a theist.

I doubt that this is as symmetrical as you suggest. I have no respect for faith, and I follow the evidence. Admittedly, I have an ego, and it would make me hang on to an old worldview longer than I should (I think we’re the same on this point). But on your side, you are held back by your respect for faith as well as all that hell stuff.

My conclusion: I think I’d have a much easier time following evidence to change my mind on this matter than you.

Did you catch what he said? He states it’s not that there are gaps that can’t be explained, but it’s that explanation itself needs to be explained. This is really doing nothing more than extending the ‘god of the gaps’ argument out to one more step.

I think you are misunderstanding the “god of the gaps’ argument. It describes the attribution to God of the things that are mysterious to science. The existence of science is not something that is mysterious to science (ie a question that science’s answer to is “I don’t know”) but it is something which science is by definition unable to answer. Science will never discover why there is science, because it is not a scientific question.

I don’t really see logic or evidence playing a big role in Alister McGrath’s conversion to Christianity. His explanations are filled with phrases like “seems to be right”, “seems to be comprehensive” and “seems to work”.

There’s nothing wrong with impressions, feelings, and opinions, but these things are merely preferences, and preferences can’t prove that a god or an afterlife actually exists.

Now I think you’re running into a cultural misunderstanding here. The British tend to express themselves a lot less dogmatically than Americans. I think it is unfair to say that he is merely stating a preference because he doesn’t express things in a dogmatic fashion. In fact, one of the main reasons he is probably speaking that way, is because he does not think it unreasonable that someone would come to a different conclusion, even though he thinks he himself has come to the true conclusion.

This is the same thing as saying that everything needs a cause, and nothing comes from nothing… therefore God.

When asked what caused God, or where did God come from, the definitions change, and God is defined as uncaused and eternal.

This might work as a way to win an argument, but it is not evidence, and doesn’t prove anything.

Science will never discover why there is science, because it is not a scientific question.

I agree. And hypothetical and philosphical arguments are not going to get us the answer either. If a God does exist, and He/She/It wants us to know it, then this God is going to have to reveal it to us.

In fact, one of the main reasons he is probably speaking that way, is because he does not think it unreasonable that someone would come to a different conclusion, even though he thinks he himself has come to the true conclusion.

I agree.

Now then, if it’s not unreasonable to come to his conclusion, and it’s not unreasonable to come to a different conclusion, then this tells us that it’s not a matter of reason… which is why I called it a preference. If there is more than one correct answer, then you can pick the one you prefer and still be correct.

Now then, if it’s not unreasonable to come to his conclusion, and it’s not unreasonable to come to a different conclusion, then this tells us that it’s not a matter of reason… which is why I called it a preference. If there is more than one correct answer, then you can pick the one you prefer and still be correct.

Please don’t misunderstand that I’m saying there is more than one correct answer to the question of whether or not there is a God. What I’m saying is that the evidence is not clearly in favour of one over the other to the point where one view is unsupportable. What you can’t say is that someone must be either willfully ignorant or stupid to take a different point of view.

Which is why I’ve been arguing against Bob’s assertion that well-informed atheists don’t become Christians (but well-informed Christians do become atheists). It is akin to saying that atheists are atheists because they look at the evidence, but Christians are Christians because they ignore it. Now you and Bob may believe that, but it is difficult to continue a discussion where you believe that everything coming from my side of the debate is obfuscation and propaganda and you are the only ones in possession of any truth.

It is akin to saying that atheists are atheists because they look at the evidence, but Christians are Christians because they ignore it.

But that’s not my argument. I’m saying that a well-educated atheist turned Christian would know all the secret passwords and trap doors to get into my secret atheist lair. And, as a Christian, he would sneak back in and blow it up. But we never see this. Christians are making the same old arguments, banging on my Maginot Line with a rock hammer. I never see an “ex-atheist” who hits me where I live, who explains why my arguments are wrong from my perspective.

By contrast, we do see the reverse: well-educated Christians turned atheists who carefully explain the reasons why they left–the craziness of hell, the problem of evil, the fact that the Bible looks just like a manmade book from the Late Iron Age would look, and so on. But the analogy is different here. Here, the atheist is using evidence artillery against a virtual bunker built out of faith.

I never see an “ex-atheist” who hits me where I live, who explains why my arguments are wrong from my perspective.

As I’ve said there could be several reasons for this. The arguments that are so important to you may not have been that important to these ex-atheists for one reason or another. You may have non-rational reasons for not accepting the arguments of these non-atheists.

By contrast, we do see the reverse: well-educated Christians turned atheists who carefully explain the reasons why they left–the craziness of hell, the problem of evil, the fact that the Bible looks just like a manmade book from the Late Iron Age would look, and so on. But the analogy is different here. Here, the atheist is using evidence artillery against a virtual bunker built out of faith.

Oh, the irony. I do see that Christians who turn atheist raise important questions. But I actually find their arguments to be flawed.

And I find your characterization that to progress one way is follow evidence and the other way is to ignore it to be rather patronizing. Sure, I may have non-rational reasons for not accepting their arguments, but I don’t see how you are any different regarding arguments going the other way.

I have no use for faith in my life, just evidence. Evidence gets me to believe stuff, and contrary evidence gets me to reject beliefs.

Is that the way it is for you? For many things, I’m sure it is. But for everything? If not, then you see the difference.

What do you do when the evidence isn’t clear? When there is conflicting evidence? Do you just stand there like a robot saying “Does not compute”? If you’re anything like all of the other people I know you will make a decision to trust the direction you best surmise the evidence points, to a conclusion that the evidence cannot get you all the way to.

If evidence can’t get you all the way there, why go there? Why not simply reserve judgment?

You’ve given examples where you simply must make a decision, and I agree with those. A business or battlefield decision, for example, almost by definition will happen with incomplete or imperfect information. But you’ve gotta do something, so you do the best you can.

In the religion situation, you don’t have to make a decision. From the Christian side of the ditch, I’ll agree that it’s important to believe in Christianity to go to heaven, but before you make the decision, you’re not there! You’re back with me on the other side of the ditch. When evidence builds a bridge across, great, but it hasn’t done so yet. I’m not going to cross a bridge built of faith.

This is what I mean when I say that I don’t see the symmetry that you suggest. You and I come at some issues differently.

If evidence can’t get you all the way there, why go there? Why not simply reserve judgment?

You’ve given examples where you simply must make a decision, and I agree with those. A business or battlefield decision, for example almost by definition will happen with incomplete or imperfect information. But you’ve gotta do something, so you do the best you can.

And that’s the thing with religion, it forces you to make a quick decision. Evangelists like to remind you that eternity is only one heartbeat away… your next breath could be your last.

And don’t forget that Jesus could also return at any moment. Growing up, it was very common for people to say things about us kids possibly being the first generation that would never die as we’d all be raptured. We were shown movies about the end times, like ‘A Thief In The Night’.

None of these things are designed to give you time to really think about it first. It is all designed to scare one into making a quick emotional decision.

What do you do when the evidence isn’t clear? When there is conflicting evidence? Do you just stand there like a robot saying “Does not compute”? If you’re anything like all of the other people I know you will make a decision to trust the direction you best surmise the evidence points, to a conclusion that the evidence cannot get you all the way to.

You say

Sure, that’s how I do it. I don’t see where faith comes in, though.

But then when I say that this is what is called faith, suddenly you’re saying

If evidence can’t get you all the way there, why go there? Why not simply reserve judgment?

My answer is that in almost all cases in life, the evidence doesn’t take us all the way there, and in a lot of cases, the evidence is so conflicted or unclear that there is a significant amount of trust needed for us to make any decision.

You’ve given examples where you simply must make a decision, and I agree with those. A business or battlefield decision, for example, almost by definition will happen with incomplete or imperfect information. But you’ve gotta do something, so you do the best you can.

Actually I don’t remember giving any examples. But I can take one you have given – voting to illustrate my point. Two candidates have different plans for how to run the country, both of the candidates will back their plans up with evidence for why they are the best plans for the country, but neither of them has evidence so strong that it is impossible to argue that their plan is not the best for the country. On the day of voting you cast your vote indicating that you trust that candidate to run the country according to their stated plan. It is possible that a candidate will not fulfill their plan either because their plan was unworkable, they were unable to implement it, or maybe they flat out lied. But everyone who votes puts their faith in the candidate they vote for.

Evidence and faith work together in almost every decision we make in life, whether it is buying a house, choosing a retirement plan, getting married, taking a taxi, asking someone for directions, deciding which computer or phone to buy.

In the religion situation, you don’t have to make a decision. From the Christian side of the ditch, I’ll agree that it’s important to believe in Christianity to go to heaven, but before you make the decision, you’re not there! You’re back with me on the other side of the ditch. When evidence builds a bridge across, great, but it hasn’t done so yet. I’m not going to cross a bridge built of faith.

A lot of the examples I mentioned are of the same order. You can decide not to buy the house, not to get married, etc. If someone without a retirement plan said that they didn’t get a retirement plan because there was none that they could buy without faith, would you conclude that they were following the evidence completely in choosing to not have a retirement plan? Or were they instead placing faith in living without a retirement plan?

None of these things are designed to give you time to really think about it first. It is all designed to scare one into making a quick emotional decision.

Retro, I am sorry that your unpleasant experiences in the church have so coloured your thinking. Would you be able to set aside your emotions about this topic to consider what I am saying? Can you see that I’m not pushing you to make a quick a decision?

My answer is that in almost all cases in life, the evidence doesn’t take us all the way there, and in a lot of cases, the evidence is so conflicted or unclear that there is a significant amount of trust needed for us to make any decision.

Give me an example that you think is analogous to the religious question. I can see none.

I suppose I could invent one where the evidence is for option A but you have some sort of gut feel that option B is actually the correct choice. (I don’t know if this touches on anything you think is relevant.)

Is this based on evidence? Is a part of your brain seeing something that you simply can’t put into words or probabilities? If so, then this conclusion is (vaguely) evidence based. If not, then you’re in the domain of psychics. I have no use for that kind of thinking.

Another thought: in no area of life is there an equivalent of Pascal’s Wager (“You better go this way or you’ll fry forever!”).

If you don’t have the evidence to conclude something … then just don’t conclude it.

Evidence and faith work together in almost every decision we make in life, whether it is buying a house, choosing a retirement plan, getting married, taking a taxi, asking someone for directions, deciding which computer or phone to buy.

What is this “faith” you keep talking about? If it’s completely evidence based (or based on evaluating what evidence we do have), then call it trust and don’t use the f-word. In particular, would contrary evidence make you reject such a decision? If so, then that’s not faith. If not, then why hold that position??

You seem to be confusing what I think of as faith with simply making a decision given incomplete information. That’s not faith (at least how I define it).

Retro, I am sorry that your unpleasant experiences in the church have so coloured your thinking. Would you be able to set aside your emotions about this topic to consider what I am saying?

Which do you think colors a persons thinking more, an unpleasant experience, or the belief in eternal conscious torment?

Can you see that I’m not pushing you to make a quick a decision?

I don’t think you personally are pushing me to make a quick decision, and I didn’t wish to imply that you were.

I don’t know what your personal beliefs are concerning the doctrines of Hell and the Second Coming, but you must admit that many churches have exploited these doctrines for many centuries. These doctrines are essentially threats of violence, and threats of violence generally reduce rational thinking and encourage quick and uninformed decisions.

Give me an example that you think is analogous to the religious question. I can see none.

How about, “Should you vote for a change in government?”
There will be conflicting evidence. The question, “Will this alternative be better than the current government?” cannot be answered definitively. You must choose to either trust in what is being promised for change, or trust in the status quo being better than what is being proposed by the alternative.

What is this “faith” you keep talking about? If it’s completely evidence based (or based on evaluating what evidence we do have), then call it trust and don’t use the f-word. In particular, would contrary evidence make you reject such a decision? If so, then that’s not faith. If not, then why hold that position??

You seem to be confusing what I think of as faith with simply making a decision given incomplete information. That’s not faith (at least how I define it).

Trust and faith are synonyms. Trust comes from a Norse word, and faith from a Latin word, but they have essentially the same meaning. If using faith is going to cause you so many problems then we can stick to using trust

But there’s no faith in this situation. At least, this doesn’t seem at all like what most Christians mean when they say “faith.” You may have a different definition, but I doubt that.

You could pick one side on a political question and then ignore all contrary evidence going forward to preserve in your mind your opinion that you’re right. Some people do that. But that’s not evidence-based thinking.

Trust and faith are synonyms.

Then why ever use the word “faith” when discussing with atheists? It only confuses. If you can use “trust” instead, doing so will avoid confusion.

My guess is that you have different words because, in some situations, they aren’t synonyms for you.

(I want to research this faith vs. trust question and post on that in the near future.)

I’ll let McGrath answer that one himself:And it seems to me that the, that our capacity to explain really needs explanation, and certainly if you’re a Christian, there’s a very ready explanation to hand, in terms of humanity bearing God’s image. There’s some correspondence between the divine rationality and a human rationality. So for me, that is the big picture, which I find most intellectually satisfying.

This doesn’t answer my question. The Pastafarian could invent his version of this nonsensical answer, but neither of us would be impressed. Why accept this pablum from the Christian?

Anyone who is impressed by a Pastafarian response seriously needs to get out more 🙂

The notion of humans bearing the image of God is not something that I think can be so easily dismissed as nonsense. That you are so quick to dismiss this makes me think that you don’t really understand it at all.

First: it’d be nice to explain our ability to explain things. It’s certainly a valid question to ask. But it’s not like anything hangs in the balance here. It’s not like science is held up until we can figure out this grounding question. (And I’m not even sure that this grounding question is meaningful.)

Second: if we fail to agree on what grounds science, that’s fine. It’s not like the bomb will go off in 5 seconds, so we might as well just randomly pick whether to snip the red wire or the blue one. That is, there’s no pressure here to decide.

Third: yes, I agree that he thinks the Christian explanation does the trick. And my point (again) is that he offers this outlandish explanation with zero evidence that the supernatural being he points to actually exists. That might be sufficient for Christians; it’s not for me.

Third: yes, I agree that he thinks the Christian explanation does the trick. And my point (again) is that he offers this outlandish explanation with zero evidence that the supernatural being he points to actually exists. That might be sufficient for Christians; it’s not for me.

OK, so we’re mainly in agreement, the big sticking point as far as you’re concerned is the evidence for God’s existence, am I right?

Are there any other sticking points? Because I’ve posted elsewhere (briefly) about the evidence for God and in particular Jesus. I imagine that this would be some of what McGrath would supply in terms of evidence for God’s existence.

Of course, we could talk about a myriad of things, but this is the problem that comes out of McGrath’s “explanation.”

If you want to present evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural character of Jesus, that would be fine. My main point was that McGrath’s grounding was completely ungrounded (to those of us who have no god belief).

If you want to present evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural character of Jesus, that would be fine. My main point was that McGrath’s grounding was completely ungrounded (to those of us who have no god belief).

From what I understood, McGrath was giving a brief answer to the point that there was a certain issue that was problematic but that which Christianity had a good explanation for, that he considered the best available. Is it fair to blame him for not going into an in-depth defense of the existence of God at each such point in a conversation?

If you think evolution provides a better explanation to the geographical limitation of species than the flood (eg koalas, kangaroos, llamas, etc) do you need to go into an in-depth defense of evolution for that? I think not.

Surely in both cases it is sufficient to say, “This explanation deals with this problem better than all the others in my opinion.”

Is it fair to blame him for not going into an in-depth defense of the existence of God at each such point in a conversation?

Of course not. That his was simply a vast statement with no support was all I’ve been saying.

Going back to your original point: you said that science has no grounding within science; I said that even if that’s true, Christianity has no better answer; you gave McGrath’s quote that said that Christianity does; and I said that an assertion of a claim in a vacuum (particularly one as huge as this) is meaningless without evidence.

There’s some correspondence between the divine rationality and a human rationality.

If there is a correspondence, one could say this is because man has created God.

I have yet to have a discussion about God’s rationality without it ending in with the statement that “we humans simply cannot understand God.”

If you are getting your ideas about God from the Bible, I fail to see how God’s rationality is anything like human rationality. What is rational about an infinite being ordering His followers tio kill children and infants? What is rational about requiring an innocent sacrifice in order to forgive sins? What is rational about torturing humans for an eternity for simply not believing?

So for me, that is the big picture, which I find most intellectually satisfying.

And for me, I find that the concept of a god brings up more questions than it answers.

And for me, I find that the concept of a god brings up more questions than it answers.

Well, it is certainly bringing up questions a lot faster than I can supply the answers. 🙂

It takes a lot more time to provide a thoughtful response to a question than it does to simply ask the question.

It would probably help if you identified the questions you really wanted answered because there are so many, and I suspect that not all of them are of equal importance to you.

As to a couple of the ones you just asked:

If there is a correspondence, one could say this is because man has created God.

It’s easy for us to imagine inventing the idea of God now, but I actually think that it would be impossible to invent the concept of God. It’s a long discussion. I’ve talked with Bob on it some before.

I have yet to have a discussion about God’s rationality without it ending in with the statement that “we humans simply cannot understand God.”

I will say this much, that we cannot fully understand God, and if we could then he would not be God – he would be something man-made. But we can understand enough to place our trust in him. That there are some things we do not understand about God I find to be an unusual deal-breaker, because there is not a single person we understand completely, not even ourselves.

I trust God because I find the accounts of Jesus in the Bible trustworthy, that Jesus was indeed God in human form, that he died, and that he rose again.

I find that the Bible explains what I observe about human life, and the universe around me better than any other belief system I have come across..

What personal experiences have you had that allows you to place your trust in God?

When who Jesus was and what he did was first clearly explained to me ( or the first time I listened clearly, I can’t be sure which it was) I was compelled by a sense that no matter how much I didn’t want to change my life, I could not ignore this. Since then I have experienced a life where God has provided needs for me, answered prayers, directed and guided me in many (usually subtle) ways.

Can you give me an example of something that we can understand about God?

Jesus is the clearest picture of God we can have in this world. If you want to know what God is like, he’s just like Jesus.

I’m guessing that your approach to your conclusion (that the gospel story is trustworthy) is different from the evidence-based one that we all know and trust. I don’t have much respect for conclusions that were reached via faith.

I’m guessing that your approach to your conclusion (that the gospel story is trustworthy) is different from the evidence-based one that we all know and trust. I don’t have much respect for conclusions that were reached via faith.

Why would you make such an assumption?

As I’ve mentioned previously, all of our conclusions are tainted by non-rational reasons. Maybe I voted for someone because he reminded me of someone I trust (in the way he looked or spoke), or because the other candidate turned me off with something he said that made me colour everything else I heard him say. Maybe I didn’t really care too much about the candidates on offer and made a less than fully-thought through vote.

Maybe I went along with the crowd on a certain moral issue. Maybe I wanted to assert by individuality by not going along with the crowd.

Could any of these sort of non-rational thought processes influenced my decision to trust the gospel story? I guess so. But I do know that I have given more thought and conducted more investigation of the evidence than for any of these other things that you have raised. And not just on one side – I’ve read Dawkins, and Hitchens (Christopher), and I’m reading what you’re posting, aren’t I? I enjoy listening to the Unbelievable podcast because I like to hear both sides of the issue in a non-parochial atmosphere.

And you can’t seem to get past that I must have just suppressed all the evidence and summoned up a mighty leap of faith to believe in God.

I can understand that you interpret the evidence differently to me. Why can’t you allow me the same understanding?

I trust God because I find the accounts of Jesus in the Bible trustworthy, that Jesus was indeed God in human form, that he died, and that he rose again.

What would it take to disprove the Biblical accounts of Jesus being divine, dying, and resurrecting? If you’re like most theists I have asked, you would say it would take witnessing the dead body of Jesus.

I’ll tell you right now, it would take witnessing the living body of Jesus before I could believe. (Since Jesus is still physically alive, I don’t see why it’d be unreasonable for Jesus to visit me physically just like he did with Thomas and the other early Christians.)

If it’s unreasonable for me to require witnessing the living body of Jesus Christ to believe, then it should also be unreasonable for Christians to require the dead body of Jesus Christ to not believe.

Since then I have experienced a life where God has provided needs for me, answered prayers, directed and guided me in many (usually subtle) ways.

My experience as a Christian was the opposite. The Bible is full of stories where God is not subtle. Today God is so subtle, there appears to be no difference between God’s actions and random events. Since the Disciples casted lots to determine God’s will when replacing Judas, it really makes me wonder how many other random things the Disciples interpreted as being the will of God. What sense does it make for God to something subtle like affecting the outcome of a roll of the dice, but then just a short time later He does something big and miraculous at the day of Pentecost?

Jesus is the clearest picture of God we can have in this world.

How do you account for all the different denominations and their differing views of Jesus?

What would it take to disprove the Biblical accounts of Jesus being divine, dying, and resurrecting? If you’re like most theists I have asked, you would say it would take witnessing the dead body of Jesus.

It wouldn’t take just one thing, because my faith isn’t dependent on just one thing. And I’m not saying this to be facetious. Honestly, if I was to at some point no longer believe in God, I can’t imagine it being because of just one thing but rather an accumulation of things to the point where this accumulation tipped the scales, so to speak.

Any evidence needs to be interpreted. And if the body of Jesus was found, there would be believers convinced it must be a hoax. Similarly, if God really did appear to some atheists who likewise would be convinced that they were the victim of a David Copperfield illusion.

If it’s unreasonable for me to require witnessing the living body of Jesus Christ to believe, then it should also be unreasonable for Christians to require the dead body of Jesus Christ to not believe.

I don’t know that unreasonable is the word I’d use. In my opinion in both cases, they are probably a reflection that someone is unwilling to reconsider their interpretation of the available evidence.

How do you account for all the different denominations and their differing views of Jesus?

Pretty much all denominations subscribe to the major creeds. Yes, there is debate between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Church considering one phrase in the Nicene creed, but other than that I think there is pretty unanimous agreement in the rest of the Nicene creed, and all of the Apostle’s creed, and the Athanasian creed. All the really important stuff is in these creeds. Any denomination that doesn’t affirm these creeds is in all likelihood a cult (and this could work as a simple working definition of a cult)

It’s easy for us to imagine inventing the idea of God now, but I actually think that it would be impossible to invent the concept of God.

I assume you’re referring just to the Christian God. I’m sure we agree that people around the world and throughout history have invented lots and lots of gods. What makes the Christian god so special?

we cannot fully understand God, and if we could then he would not be God – he would be something man-made.

OK, our finite brains can’t fully understand the infinite. But they can sure handle a lot more than God gives us right now. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness is a showstopper for me. When God has all the properties of a nonexistent being, I’m not moved to believe.

I assume you’re referring just to the Christian God. I’m sure we agree that people around the world and throughout history have invented lots and lots of gods. What makes the Christian god so special?

In Bad News, guitarist Vim Fuego says “I could play “Stairway To Heaven” when I was 12. Jimmy Page didn’t actually write it until he was 22. I think that says quite a lot.”

Unfortunately it doesn’t say what he thinks it does (that he’s a better guitarist than Jimmy Page), but something else, that someone who cannot invent can copy.

What I am saying is that there is a problem with the first invention of God. I don’t think it can happen. Once you have a concept of God, you can, but before then, I believe it to be impossible.

OK, our finite brains can’t fully understand the infinite. But they can sure handle a lot more than God gives us right now. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness is a showstopper for me. When God has all the properties of a nonexistent being, I’m not moved to believe.

I do not deny that the hiddenness of God is a problem. The question I would like to ask is “If God exists, why should he reveal more than he already has?”

And every god was inspired by hearing about some prior god? So then the real god inspired the first religion, what, 10 thousand years ago? Or 20 or 30?

That doesn’t support your Yahweh hypothesis, since he was a Johnny-come-lately from less than 3000 years ago.

If God exists, why should he reveal more than he already has?

A trick question, perhaps?

Because God loves us more than we love ourselves and because we all roast in hell unless we believe in the whole God/Jesus thing. God’s got a pretty enormous motivation to help us with this belief thing. There’s no plausible reason for staying hidden.

Unless, of course, he can’t reveal himself because he is actually imaginary.

Humans don’t create ex nihilo. We construct from what we’ve got, whether it be in the physical world or the world of ideas. No one has ever had a completely original idea in the history of the world. They’ve just taken an existing idea and put it in a different context.

That doesn’t support your Yahweh hypothesis, since he was a Johnny-come-lately from less than 3000 years ago.

Not necessarily. The Bible affirms pre-Abrahamic religion (eg Melchizedek) which in all likelihood was ancient at that time and had no writings.

Because God loves us more than we love ourselves and because we all roast in hell unless we believe in the whole God/Jesus thing. God’s got a pretty enormous motivation to help us with this belief thing. There’s no plausible reason for staying hidden.

So he comes down to earth in human form, preaches publicly, is arrested, crucified, and rises from the dead and commissions the witnesses to spread this news.

No one has ever had a completely original idea in the history of the world. They’ve just taken an existing idea and put it in a different context.

Well … kinda. But an evolving idea of God–from the snapping of a twig in a dark forest, to vague spook, to intelligence in the things around us (rocks, trees, etc.), to gods of various features of nature (thunder, fire, sea), to a Roman-like pantheon, to a monotheism, to a monotheism with the god being omnipotent and omniscient–sounds quite plausible to me. You need a compelling argument to convince me otherwise.

The Bible affirms pre-Abrahamic religion (eg Melchizedek) which in all likelihood was ancient at that time and had no writings.

So the Yahweh concept is simply version 3 or 4 or 5 of an original from thousands of years earlier? Doesn’t say much about the reality of Yahweh then.

Why is this not enough?

You’ve gotta be kidding. It’s a story, little different from the stories of a hundred other religions. Why imagine that the Jesus story is any better than the Mormon story or Hindu story or any other?

Well … kinda. But an evolving idea of God–from the snapping of a twig in a dark forest, to vague spook, to intelligence in the things around us (rocks, trees, etc.), to gods of various features of nature (thunder, fire, sea), to a Roman-like pantheon, to a monotheism, to a monotheism with the god being omnipotent and omniscient–sounds quite plausible to me. You need a compelling argument to convince me otherwise.

What you have given is a common suggestion of the evolution of religions. I find it problematic on a few points. The first is that the earliest religious writings we have refer to one supreme God.

The second is that there are attributes of the Christian God that I don’t think can be explained in such a way.

So the Yahweh concept is simply version 3 or 4 or 5 of an original from thousands of years earlier? Doesn’t say much about the reality of Yahweh then.

No. I’m just pointing out that there are indications that Yahweh worship extends back before it was written about.

You’ve gotta be kidding. It’s a story, little different from the stories of a hundred other religions. Why imagine that the Jesus story is any better than the Mormon story or Hindu story or any other?

Two reasons. It happened, and it explains this world and the human experience better than any other story.

Your claim that mankind couldn’t invent the idea of god but could only tweak an idea already put there by an actual god is still unbelievable. If all you’re stating is that this is your belief, that’s fine, but I see no evidence.

It happened…

That’s it? That’s all you’ll give me?

Yeah–you’re a Christian, so you think it happened. But this doesn’t help me out. I have no god belief, remember?

it explains this world and the human experience better than any other story.

Could be, but let me point you to a naturalistic view of the world. There are natural reasons behind natural disasters, life, and the origin of the universe. That explains things far better than any story.

Yeah–you’re a Christian, so you think it happened. But this doesn’t help me out. I have no god belief, remember?

Compared to the examples you gave me, the historicity of the life and death of Christ, and the establishment and history of the early church compares extremely favourably to Hinduism (which makes little to no historical claims) and Mormonism (whose historical claims are dodgy in the extreme). If you limit the religions making history claims to those with a reasonable credibility history-wise, you end up with a very short list.

Could be, but let me point you to a naturalistic view of the world. There are natural reasons behind natural disasters, life, and the origin of the universe. That explains things far better than any story.

Ah, but the naturalistic view of the world also has it’s own meta-narrative. In other words, it too is a story of how the world came to be the way it is. And I find the Christian story explains things better (especially the human experience).

Whaaa … ? You think conventional Christianity has a better historical record than Mormonism? I must disagree.

First off, the story reads like weak science fiction. We agree that it’s nonsense. But it’s competing against Christianity, whose historical record is flimsy.

The historical evidence for Mormonism is written in modern English. Compare that to the gulf we must cross to understand the language, times, and customs of the time of Jesus. We have newspaper articles written (again, in modern English) about the early days of the Mormon church; compare that to gospels written decades after the supposed life of Jesus. And we have much that Joseph Smith wrote himself.

You’ll point out that the claims of Joseph Smith have been refuted. And I agree. But the claims of Jesus are unrefutable!

Of course, they’re dead on arrival in my mind because they’re supernatural. But that’s not much of an obstacle for you, so we needn’t go there.

Mormonism beats conventional Christianity on every point of evidence.

You say the early church grew quickly? Check out Sathya Sai Baba–he had millions convinced that he could do miracles in his own lifetime! Jesus died with a few hundred followers at most.

Ah, but the naturalistic view of the world also has it’s own meta-narrative. In other words, it too is a story of how the world came to be the way it is.

That evidence exists and can be trusted? OK, I guess. But these assumptions have been tested and have been found reliable. Show me how the Christian worldview explains things better.

But it’s competing against Christianity, whose historical record is flimsy.

Really? I think you’ll find the vast majority of relevant scholars consider Christianity’s historical record to be largely accurate.

The historical evidence for Mormonism is written in modern English. Compare that to the gulf we must cross to understand the language, times, and customs of the time of Jesus. We have newspaper articles written (again, in modern English) about the early days of the Mormon church; compare that to gospels written decades after the supposed life of Jesus. And we have much that Joseph Smith wrote himself.

I’m sure you have no desire to be an apologist for Mormonism but two points that must be made are that firstly, Mormonism’s claims for pre-Joseph Smith history are, ahem, best not mentioned if you want to be taken seriously, and second, Joseph Smith’s record for telling the truth wasn’t the flashest.

Mormonism beats conventional Christianity on every point of evidence.

Which makes this claim of yours extremely suspect

You say the early church grew quickly?

No, I didn’t. I said (or at least my implication was) it was historically well-documented.

That evidence exists and can be trusted? OK, I guess. But these assumptions have been tested and have been found reliable. Show me how the Christian worldview explains things better.

Um, that’s not the meta-narrative for naturalism. Naturalism’s meta-narrative is more along the lines that in one small outpost of the universe, life has managed to start, develop and flourish despite the enormous obstacles, of chance, etc until it is ultimately extinguished by the forces of nature.

What you mention about evidence, etc is something that is held common to most worldviews, and not something unique to naturalism at all. Naturalism’s meta-narrative’s main weakness is its failure to account for our search for meaning and truth. Homo sapiens sapiens is either a dead end, or a stepping stone on the way to a dead end.

I think you’ll find the vast majority of relevant scholars consider Christianity’s historical record to be largely accurate.

Did Joseph Smith exist? Did Joseph Smith start Mormonism? Did the Mormons start the town of Nauvoo, and then migrate to Utah?

The historical record of Joseph Smith and his followers are also largely accurate.

Mormonism’s claims for pre-Joseph Smith history are, ahem, best not mentioned if you want to be taken seriously,…

And the pre-Jesus Christ history in the Old testament is unhistorical as well. Think about the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the Canaanite Conquest, etc.

Joseph Smith’s record for telling the truth wasn’t the flashest.

And Jesus didn’t even write anything Himself.

If the Mormons waited for forty years to start writing down what Joseph Smith said and did, I’m sure they could have fixed it up so that Joseph Smith wasn’t a liar, and they could have also put in some prophecies that he made that came true.

No, I didn’t. I said (or at least my implication was) it was historically well-documented.

And it’s the same thing with Christianity. When contemporary historians are reporting about Christianity, they are simply reporting that this movement existed, and reported what they believed. These contemporary historians were not reporting that they had actually seen Jesus, or His claims were true, or that any of the events in the New testamant actually took place.

Where are the contemporary historians’ accounts of the Star of Bethleham and the Slaughter of the Innocents that occured when Jesus was born? Where are the contemporary historians’ accounts of the earthquake and darkness that occured at the Crucifixion?

Do you really believe the credibility of Christianity and Mormonism are on the same level? Or are you just playing devil’s advocate?

First of all, yes, I am just playing devil’s advocate, but it’s not just to be a pain, it’s for a purpose.

When we examine a faith that we don’t believe in, we will often ask questions that we wouldn’t ask if we already believed in it.

Likewise, when we are defending a faith we already believe in, we will often accept defenses that we wouldn’t accept for a faith we don’t believe in.

The credibility of Christrianity is not all that different than the credibility of Mormonism. The similarities are striking if you look at them: Both faiths were adaptions of a pre-existing faith. Both faiths rely on books filled with unhistorical stories about ancient ancestors. Both faiths were founded by one man and a small number of commited followers. Both faiths were founded by men who were killed for their non-standard beliefs. Both faiths grew well eveb though they were heavily persecuted.

Of course there are differences between these two faiths, but we can’t tear down one faith with the same argument we use to build up the other. We need to be consistent.

Mormons use many of the same arguments to defend their faith as Christians use to defend theirs.

If we are to believe in Jesus because his existence is historically reliable, then we need to explain why we shouldn’t also believe in Joseph Smith.

If the well documented witnesses of the golden plates don’t prove Mormonism to be true, then why should the weaker documented witnesses for the Resurrection of Jesus prove anything?